Editorial: To add housing, California must rethink transportation

Commuters on Interstate 80. A new poll shows most Bay Area voters are in favor of new housing production -- as long as it doesn't make traffic worse.

Photo: Paul Chinn / The Chronicle

For decades, Bay Area residents resisted new housing developments in their neighborhoods and cities. This collective decision, combined with a tech boom that poured thousands of new residents into our region, resulted in our current — and devastating — housing crisis.

But things are changing. According to a new poll by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Bay Area News Group, Bay Area residents want new housing, and they want it badly.

In a five-county poll of 900 voters, the organizations found that 64 percent favor building “significant quantities of new housing,” and 53 percent would support new construction even if it changed the character of their neighborhoods.

In another surprise, the voters surveyed were in favor of all kinds of new housing production — from single-family homes to subsidized low-income housing — even in their own neighborhoods.

“The numbers were surprisingly strong,” said Carl Guardino, president and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. “We’re hoping it means that people understand the ways in which the housing crisis is no longer theoretical, and there’s more openness to being part of the solution.”

But there’s a catch — and it’s a big one.

Less than half of voters were in favor of new housing if it adds more commuters to our roads and transit systems. Just 30 percent were willing to support new housing that made their own commutes worse.

Because housing and transportation are inextricably linked, it’s tempting to say these poll results are more of the same NIMBYism that got us here.

On the other hand, any reason that prevents local governments from building their fair share of housing deserves to be taken seriously.

“We have to tackle both housing and traffic in a very thoughtful way,” Guardino said. “They’re two sides of the same coin.”

In most Bay Area communities, local governments have asked developers to pay fees to offset the increased traffic impacts of the new housing they build.

While those fees may be quite steep for any one project — say, a $1,000 per-unit traffic fee for a 100-unit project — the high cost of infrastructure projects means there still aren’t enough to reduce the impact of new traffic, much less existing traffic.

“You just can’t get enough money from developer fees to get the kinds of improvements people are asking for,” said Carol Galante, faculty director of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley.

“We need a broader funding mechanism for these infrastructure costs, and that’s what we used to have,” Galante said. “The suburbs didn’t get highways because of traffic impact fees, they got them because the federal government built them.”

Unfortunately, the federal government has failed to make appropriate investments in the nation’s infrastructure. That’s had big impacts on California.

At the state and local level, California voters are strong supporters of transportation investments. During the 2016 election cycle, voters approved 15 out of 26 transportation ballot measures, worth a total of $133 billion.

But Proposition 13 has restricted transportation funding, and the state has had its own cycle of infrastructure disinvestment.

One necessary solution is for the federal government to pass a serious, bipartisan national infrastructure bill.

The Bay Area has multiple major transportation projects in the pipeline that simply won’t get off the ground without federal investment. Unfortunately, the Trump administration is touting an infrastructure bill that would shortchange these projects; our representatives in Washington need to ensure we get the funding we need.

Another necessary solution is for the state to use transportation funding to incentivize communities to build housing. Rewarding cities that build housing near transit and transportation hubs would encourage environmentally sustainable development, ease congestion, and chip away at California’s housing crisis. The time is now.

This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.